On 9/5/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
I am convinced (maybe because I am one of those) that the Wikimedia projects actually bring people who had absolutely no idea about the difference in evilness or goodness ;-) between proprietary software or free software to come and care about these issues.
I was a Windoze and Adaubi advocate (and I mean the word advocate here) not two years ago. I am running Linux on my machine and working with The Gimp even on a professional level today. I do not believe that "forcing" the "free" upon people is the way to go. Interess them, poke them with it, make them understand. Be pedagogic and patient. Don't "force" them. Teach them your "principles" rather than scare them with "policy".
I won't mind if a user using IE is faced with a white screen with a link to use firefox :P
I do, if that means this person is hindered in their access to the content we host.
Me too. Our job is providing free access to the sum of all knowledge. With that in mind, the way how others access that content is an exogenous element the influence of which lies outside of our scope and is much better served by other organizations that have the express purpose to advocate certain types of technologies and methodologies (and collect funds for that purpose).
For us, the question nees to be: what technologies, what infrastructure does a user have to access our content and how can we accomodate that within reasonable constraints regarding finances and other resources? If we cannot accomdate a specific type of infrastructur or technology, what impact does that have on that user's ability to access our content? Are there substitutes or workarounds? Is there a third party that has the resources and the interest to cover our own inability?
Any self-imposed restriction to "only non-proprietary software" or "only technology with at least 40% market share" ends up being counter-productive to our own mission.
Sebastian